FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13116 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 97- 189- 233 MAR UF B AN GS AWA, P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( J une 8, 2005)

B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M aruf B angsaw a, a c i t i ze n and nat i ve of Indo nesi a, proceedi ng pro se, pet i t i on s thi s C ou rtfor r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ’ s” )Be causeBa ng sawa ' s removal procee dings c ommenced after A pril 1, 1997, the eff

ective 1 date of the Illeg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt Responsibil ity

Act of 1996 ( “IIRIRA”), this case is g overne d by

the per manent provisions of the I NA, as a mended by

the IIRIRA. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. United States Att'y Gen., 321 F .3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). 2 f i na l or de ra f

f i r m i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ’ s ” ) de ni a l of a s y l um a nd
w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al un der the Im m i grat i on and N at i on al i ty A ct(“ IN A ”) . 1 A f t e rr e vi e w , w e di s m i s s i n pa r ta nd de ny i n pa r tB a ngs a w a ’ s pe t i t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D A l though M a ruf

B a ngs a w a ha s l i ve d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s s i nc e O c t obe r31, 19 99 , hi s non -i m m i grantcr ew m an vi saexpi re d o n N ov em ber 14, 19 99 . O n M ar ch 18 , 20 03 , B angsaw a f

i l ed a pet i t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the U ni t ed N at i on s C on vent i on A gai nstT orture a nd O ther C ruel , Inhu m an and D egra di ng T re atm entor P un i shm ent(“ C A T ”) . O n A pri l 15 , 20 03 , the B ureau of I m m i gr a t i on a nd C us t om s E nf or c e m e nt( “ B I C E ” ) s e rve d B a ngs a w a w i th a no t i ce t o app ea r, char gi ng thathe w as an al i en subj ec tt o rem ov al because he had ove r s t a y e d hi s vi s a . O n M a y 20, 2003, B a ngs a w a appe a r e d be f or e the I J a nd c onc e de d hi s r e m ovabi l i ty , pur s ui ng onl y on hi s c l a i m s f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef . A . B a n g sa w a ’s A p p l i ca ti o n a n d T esti m o n y B efo re th e IJ I n h i s a s y l u m ap p l i c a t i o n a n d i n h i s t e s t i m o n y b e f o r e th e I J , B a n g s a wa c l a i m e d tha the w a s a tt a c ke d a nd thr e a t e ne d by M us l i m s i n I ndone s i a be c a us e ofThereis some confusion about B ang sawa ’s re ligious bac kground. B ang sawa claimed 2 that hewa s a

Christian a

nd no t a Jeho va h’ s w itn e ss. Ho wever, healsoc laime d th at hi s p arents were Jehovah’s Witnesses, had g atherings in their homefor Jehovah’s Witnesses, and witnessed to Ba ng sawa . It is clear that Ba ng sawa now contends that he is a Christian. He also contends that th epre c isenatureof

hisre lig ion

is n ot re leva

nt b e c a us ehewa s p ers e cute d b y Mu slims sim ply be c a us eheis a

no n- Mu slim. 3 h is C h r is tia n f

a ith . S p e c if

ic a lly , B a n g s a w a s ta te d th a t: ( 1 ) w h e n h e w a s a c h ild , h is p a r e n ts h e ld B ib le s tu d ie s a t th e irh o m e w ith J e h o v a h 's W itn e s s e s ; ( 2 ) in 1 9 7 9 , a g r o u p o f M u s lim s to ld h is p a r e n ts to s to p h a v in g r e lig io u s g a th e r in g s in th e ir hom e ; ( 3) l a t e r , M us l i m s thr e w r oc ks a tthe i rhom e a nd m oc ke d the i rf a i th; a nd ( 4) i n 1 98 0, hi s par ent s w er e f orce d t o m ov e bec ause thei r l i ves w er e i n d anger. 2 B a n g s a w a c la im e d th a t h is lif e w a s p e a c e f

u l f r o m 1 9 8 0 u n til 1 9 9 0 , w h e n h is M u s lim n e ig h b o r s th r e w s to n e s a t h is f a m ily ’s h o u s e a n d th r e a te n e d to k ill h is f a m ily . B a n g s a w a ’s n e ig h b o r s a ls o a s s a u lte d th e J e h o v a h 's W itn e s s e s w h o c a m e to h is p a r e n ts ’ h o m e f

o rB ib le s tu d y . B an g saw a rep o rt ed fu rth er i n ci d en t s b eg i n n i n g i n 1 9 9 6 . S p eci fi cal l y, B a ngs a w a c l a i m e d tha t : ( 1) i n J a nua ry 1996, he w a s f i r e d f r om hi s j ob f

orbe i ng a C hr i s t i a n; ( 2) i n J ul y 1997, hi s hous e w a s bur gl a r i z e d a nd va nda l i z e d, a nd a nt i
- C hr i s t i a n w or ds w e r e w r i tt e n on the w a l l s ; ( 3) i n J a nua ry 1998, he r e c e i ve d a l ett erfr om ra di ca l M usl i m s, st at i ng thatno n-M usl i m s s ho ul d g etou tof Indo nesi a; ( 4) i n m i d- J a nua ry 1998, w he n he w a s goi ng t o c hur c h w i th hi s pa r e nt s , a gr oup of M u sl i m s w i th k n i v es st o p p ed th ei r car an d sh att ered th ei r w i n d sh i el d w i th st o n es,Indonesian g overnment-issued identity cards display

the individual’s relig ion. 3 4 se ri ou sl y i nj uri ng hi s m other; and (5) i n F ebruary19 98 , he and h i s brother w er e a tta c k e d b y a g r o u p o f

M u s lim s . B a ngs a w a a ddi t i ona l l y s t a t e d tha t , i n A pr i l 1998, i n the m i ds tof r a m pa nt ri ot i ng and l oo t i ng , a group of M usl i m s a sked hi m t o j oi n them i n b urni ng churches a nd ki l l i ng C hr i s t i a ns . A f t e rdi s c ove r i ng tha tB a ngs a w a w a s a C hr i s t i a n, the 3 grou p “ st art ed t o h i t[hi m ] , t i ed [hi m ] w i th rop e, and h i t[hi s] fa ce w i th a ho tbar unt i l [ he ] w a s unc ons c i ous . ” B a ngs a w a s t a t e d tha thi s f r i e nd f ound hi m the ne xt d a y s e r io u s ly in

ju r e d , b u t B a n g s a w a d id n o t g o to th e h o s p ita l b e c a u s e h is p a r e n ts c o u ld n o t a f

f o r d it. B a ngs a w a c l a i m e d tha tbe c a us e of the s e i nc i de nt s he de c i de d t o c om e t o the U ni t ed S t at es , and d i d so i n 1 99 8. H ow ever , ac cordi ng t o B angsaw a, he re turned t o Ind on es i a s oo n there af t erbecause hi s m other w as cr i t i ca l l y i l l . B angsaw a l at er l e f tI ndone s i a a nd l i ve d f

orf i ve m onths i n S outh A f

r i c a . H e di d notappl y f or as yl um i n S ou th A fr i ca , and returned agai n t o Ind on es i a. B angsaw a c l ai m ed that h e w en tb ack t o In d o n esi a o n th i s o ccasi o n b ecau se h i s fri en d “ ran aw ay w i th [h i s]
m one y , s o [ he ] c oul d notdo a ny thi ng e l s e , ” a nd, “ e ve n though [ he ] w a s s c a r e d, [ h e ] h a d to g o b a c k .” W h e n a s k e d , B a n g s a w a s ta te d th a t h e h a d o r ig in a lly p u r c h a s e d th e r e tu rn tic k e t to I n d o n e s iab e c a u s e it w a s r e q u ir e d b y la w .5

B a n g s a was u b m i tt e d s e v e r a l d o c u m e n t s i n s u p p o r to f h i s ap p l i c a t i o n . He s ubm i tt e d a l e tt e rf

r om R e ve r e nd M e s a c h G . A gung W i j oy o, the pa s t orof

the B e tha ny I ndone s i a n C hur c h of G od of G e or gi a , l oc a t e d i n N or c r os s , G e or gi a . T he l ett erst at ed thatB angsaw a had been a fa i thful and act i ve church w orker s i nce 2 0 0 0 . B a n g s a waa l s o s u b m i tt e d a l e tt e rf r o m h i s p a r e n t s s t a t i n g th a t : ( 1 ) B a n g s a wa a n d h is f a m ily w e r e p e r s e c u te d b y M u s lim g r o u p s w h e n B a n g s a w a w a s a y o u th be c a us e hi s pa r e nt s ha d a B i bl e s tudy a tthe i rhous e w i th J e hova h' s W i tne s s e s ; ( 2) th e irc a rw a s a tta c k e d b y a g r o u p o f M u s lim s w h e n th e y w e r e o n th e irw a y to c h u r c h , a n d , a s a r e s u l t , B a n g s a wa ' s m o th e rwa s h o s p i t a l i z e d ; a n d ( 3 ) B a n g s a wa hi m s e l f a l s o w a s s e r i ous l y i nj ur e d a ts om e l a t e rda t e , butdi d notr e c e i ve ho spi t al i za t i on because of the cost . T he l ett eral so st at ed that : “ af t er[B angsaw a] h a d a rr iv e d in A m e r ic a th e f ir s t tim e , w e a s k e d h im to r e tu rn a s s o o n a s p o s s ib le b e c a u s e h i s m o th e rs e r i o u s l y f e l l s i c k , ” b u t , b e c a u s e o f th e p e r s e c u t i o n , “ we consent ed ou r s on t o l ea ve for A m er i cafor the se cond t i m e. ” B angsaw a a l so subm i tt ed a l ett erfr om “ R S P er sa habat an, ” w hi ch w as tra nsl at ed as “ G ener al H ospi t al , ” purpo rt i ng t o d ocum entthatB angsaw a' s m other

“ w e ntthr ough i nt e ns i ve m e di c a l tr e a tm e nton J a nua ry 18, 1998 due t o a s hoc k, head and face i nj ury, w hi ch had caused uncon sc i ou snes s. ”As noted above , Ba ng sawa contends that heis a Christian and not a Jehovah’s Witness. 4 He also argues that his knowledg e of theJ ehovah’ s Wi tness relig ion is irreleva nt beca use he w as perse cuted merely

beca use he w as a non- Muslim, notfor a ny specificrelig ious belief. However, these a rguments do not alter our a nalysis of the IJ ’s credibility deter mination, which was ba sed on Ba ng sawa ’s contentions that his parents held J ehovah’ s Wi tness Bible studies in their home, re gula rly witne sse d tohim , a

nd werepers e cute d b e c a

us eof the sepra c tic e s. 6 In addi t i on , B angsaw a s ub m i tt ed nu m er ou s r eport s f rom i nt ernat i on al organi za t i on s c hron i cl i ng vi ol ence agai nstC hri st i ans i n Ind on es i a. B . I J’ s D e c i s i on In an oral deci si on , the IJfoun d thatB angsaw a’ s t es t i m on y l ac ked c r e d ib ility , a n d th a t B a n g s a w a ’s e n tir e ap p lic a tio n w a s f r iv o lo u s a n d f

r a u d u le n tly f ile d . T h e I J b a s e d th is d e te r m in a tio n o n s e v e r a l f a c to r s . F i r s t , dur i ng the c our s e of the he a r i ng, the I J que s t i one d B a ngs a w a aboutthe te n e ts o f th e J e h o v a h 's W itn e s s f a ith . A c c o r d in g to th e I J , B a n g s a w a in c o rr e c tly a n s w e r e d q u e s tio n s ab o u t th e J e h o v a h ’s W itn e s s v ie w o f “h o w C h r is t d ie d ” ; th e ir te a c h in g s ab o u t th e y e a rin w h ic h S a ta n r e b e lle d a g a in s t G o d ; th e irv ie w o f h e ll; and the nu m ber of peopl e w ho w i l l be abl e t o “ l i ve i n the pres ence of G od . ” T he IJ ob se rved: “ [Y ] ou re pres entthatyou, bo th you r par ent s a re Je ho vah' s W i tness es a nd obvi ous l y the y w oul d w i tne s s t o y ou, . . . buty ou don' tknow the f unda m e nt a l s . ” F ur the r , the I J f ound B a ngs a w a ’ s appl i c a t i on s us pi c i ous 4 because of the i nv ol vem entof R ever end W i j oyo. B angsaw a’ s i ni t i al i nt ervi ew erat th e B I C E o f

f ic e in A tla n ta n o te d th a t B a n g s a w a a rr iv e d a t th e B I C E o f f ic e to f ile7

hi s appl i c a t i on f

ora s y l um a l ong w i th 25 othe ri ndi vi dua l s f r om B e tha ny I ndone s i a n C hur c h of

G od, e a c h of

w hom r e c e nt l y f

i l e d f ora s y l um . I n a ddi t i on, the B IC E i nt ervi ew erno t ed thatthe P hi l adel ph i a B IC E offi ce “ i s c on du ct i ng an on go i ng i nv es t i gat i on i nt o 1 70 0 fraud ul entas yl um appl i ca t i on s, m any of w hi ch ca n b e l i nk ed back t o W i j oyo and hi s c hu rc h. ” F urther, the IJexpl i ci t l y f ou nd thatB angsaw a w as un truthful abou tw hether W i j oyo h el ped B angsaw a app l y f or as yl um . D uri ng B angsaw a’ s i ni t i al i nt ervi ew w ith th e B I C E , B a n g s a w a s ta te d th a t W ijo y o e n c o u r a g e d h im to ap p ly . L a te rin the i nt ervi ew , B angsaw a r ec ant ed thi s s t ory a nd st at ed thatfi l i ng for a sy l um w as hi s ow n i dea. A tthe heari ng before the IJ , B angsaw a a gai n d eni ed thatW i j oyo h ad pl a y e d a ny r ol e i n the pr e pa r a t i on of B a ngs a w a ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on. T he I J m a de a f i nd i ng thatB angsaw a per j ured hi m se l f on thi s poi ntbase d i n p artup on the l ett er fr om R ever end W i

j oyo i ncl ud ed i n B angsaw a’ s app l i ca t i on , and the fa ctthat B a ngs a w a appl i e d f

ora s y l um a l ong w i th a 25- pe r s on gr oup f r om W i j oy o’ s c hur c h. A d d itio n a lly , th e I J f

o u n d it s u s p ic io u s th a t B a n g s a w a d id n o t f ile h is ap p lic a tio n u n til h e h a d b e e n in th e U n ite d S ta te s f o rm o r e th a n th r e e y e a r s . B angsaw a t es t i fi ed thathe di d n otfi l e a n asy l um appl i ca t i on w hen h e f i rs tarri ved i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s be c a us e hi s f r i e nds t ol d hi m tha the w oul d be de por t e d i f he ap p lie d .8

I n its d e c is io n , th e I J p o in te d o u t s e v e r a l o th e rin c o n s is te n c ie s in B a n g s a w a 's te s tim o n y : ( 1 ) B a n g s a w a d id n o t e x p la in w h y h is p a r e n ts g a v e u p th e irJ e h o v a h 's W itn e s s b e lie f

s b e tw e e n 1 9 8 0 a n d 1 9 9 0 ; ( 2 ) B a n g s a w a f a ile d to p r o v id e a n y d e ta ils ab o u th i s h o m e b e i n g b u r g l a r i z e d a n d v a n d a l i z e d i n J u l y 1 9 9 7 ; ( 3 ) B a n g s a wa de s c r i be d be i ng vi c i ous l y a tt a c ke d by a gr oup of M us l i m s , butdi d notgo t o the h o s p ita l; a n d ( 4 ) a f

te ra ll o f th e e v e n ts h e d e s c r ib e d , B a n g s a w a r e tu rn e d to Indo nesi a tw i ce . T he IJal so qu es t i on ed the authent i ci ty of the pu rport ed ho spi t al do cum entthatB angsaw a s ub m i tt ed t o sub st ant i at e the cl ai m thathi s m other w as hos pi t a l i z e d a f

t e rM us l i m s a tt a c ke d the i rc a r . T he I J not e d tha tthe doc um e nt c ont a i ne d i rr e gul a rhos pi t a l l a ngua ge a nd di d notde s c r i be the na tur e of the tr e a tm e n t o rth e in

ju r ie s . T he I J a c know l e dge d tha tthe r e w a s c onf l i c tbe tw e e n C hr i s t i a ns a nd M us l i m s i n I ndone s i a , butque s t i one d w he the rB a ngs a w a w a s t a ki ng a dva nt a ge of the c onf l i c t s t o c r e a t e a c l a i m . T he I J s pe c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d tha ti t“ que s t i on[ e d] [ B a ngs a w a ' s ] a s s oc i a t i on w i th thi s pa s t or. . . [ w ho] i s i nvol ve d i n a s s i s t i ng in d iv id u a ls w ith c r e a tin g a s y lu m c la im s .” T h e I J a ls o e x p r e s s e d d o u b t a s to w h eth er B an g saw a w as ev en C h ri st i an , as th e o n l y ev i d en ce o f h i s b el i ef w as a le tte rf r o m th e q u e s tio n ab le p a s to r . In addi t i on t o the adverse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on , the IJfoun d that B a ngs a w a ' s r e pe a t e d r e turns t o I ndone s i a f ur the rc uta ga i ns thi s a s y l um c l a i m . T heOn a pp e al, B ang sawa

do e s n ot m akeany

argument re g ardinghisCA T c laim, and thu s it 5 is deemed a

bandoned. Mendoza v. United States Att’y Gen., 327 F .3d 1283, 1286 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). 9 IJ n o t ed th at : (1 ) B an g saw a h ad p ro v i d ed n o d o cu m en t at i o n o f h i s m o th er' s i l l n ess, th e p u rp o r te d r e a s o n f

o rh is in itia l r e tu rn ; a n d ( 2 ) B a n g s a w a h a d f a ile d to e x p la in a d e q u a te ly w h y h e w o u ld r e tu rn to I n d o n e s iaa f te rs p e n d in g f

iv e m o n th s in S o u th A fri ca. T h e IJ st at edth at“ [i ] tseem s u n l i k el y, i f th i s i n d i v i d u al h ad su ffered so grea t l y . . . and fear ed for hi s l i fe and . . . w ou l d rather di e than return t o Ind on es i a, ye the do es , no ton ce bu ttw i ce . ” T he IJthu s f

ou nd thatB angsaw a had no tes t abl i shed thathe had suffer ed p a s t p e r s e c u tio n o rh a d a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , a n d d e n ie d h im a s y l um . F orthe s a m e r e a s ons , the I J de ni e d B a ngs a w a ’ s r e que s tf orw i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , f

i ndi ng tha tB a ngs a w a f

a i l e d t o m e e tthe he a vi e rbur de n of s how i ng a c l e a rpr obabi l i ty of

pe r s e c ut i on. T he I J f

ound tha tB a ngs a w a l i ke w i s e w a s not ent i t l ed t o C A T re l i ef

. 5 I n a ddi t i on, the I J de t e r m i ne d tha tB a ngs a w a ’ s a s y l um appl i c a t i on w a s not tim e ly f ile d . T h e I J f

o u n d th a t B a n g s a w a h a d n o t p r o v id e d a r e a s o n ab le expl anat i on suff

i ci entt o w ai ve the on e- ye arre qu i re m ent , and thu s deni ed B a n g s a w a ’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n o n th e a d d itio n a l g r o u n d o f u n tim e lin e s s .The IJalso specif ically found that B ang sawa

had committed fra

ud at the hea

ringand 6 that this was an excludable of fenseunder I

NA § 212(a)(6) (C)(i), 8 U .S.C. § 1182(a)(6) (C)(i). The IJthus ordere d Ba

ng sawa remove d to Indonesia ba sed upon this fraud in addition to the overstay-of- visa grounds stated in the noticeto appea r. Be causethe B IA adopted theIJ ’s re asoning , we review theIJ ’s dec ision. S ee A l Najjar 7 v. Ashcrof

t, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). In its July 2, 2004 filing that opposed Ba ng sawa ’s motion for a stay of removal, the 8 g overnment also included a motion to dismis s Ba ng sawa ’s petition for lac k of jurisdiction. The g overnment’s motion to di smiss was filed before B ang sawa filed his initial brief on appe al and was ba sed upon the g overnment’s belief that Ba ng sawa had not exhausted, before the IJand the B IA, c ertain c laimshewould bemakingin t

hisCourt . ThisCourt

ordere d th eg ov ernment’ s July 2, 20 04motion

to dismissc arrie d w iththec a se . Weno w c on c ludethat B ang sa wa did no t f ail to exhaust those claims, and we theref ore deny the g overnment’s July

2, 2004 motion to di smiss. After filing theJuly

2, 2004 motion, the government’s brie f on appe al raised an additional jurisdictional issue which we address in Part II .A of this opinion. 10 T hu s, the IJordered B angsaw a r em ov ed t o Ind on es i a. 6 B a ngs a w a appe a l e d t o the B I A . I n a br i e f opi ni on, the B I A a dopt e d a nd a f f irm e d th e I J ’s d e c is io n a n d d is m is s e d B a n g s a w a ’s ap p e a l. 7 B a ngs a w a the n t i m e l y pe t i t i one d thi s C our tf orr e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s de c i s i on, a nd r e que s t e d a s t a y of

hi s r e m ova l pe ndi ng a dj udi c a t i on of hi s pe t i t i on. T he go vernm entop po se d B angsaw a’ s m ot i on for ast ayof re m ov al and thi s C ou rt d e n i e d th e m o t i o n . We n o w a d d r e s s B a n g s a wa ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 8 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . A s y lu m C la im W e f i r s tc onc l ude tha tw e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rB a ngs a w a ’ s a s y l um c l a i m a s s e r t e d i n hi s pe t i t i on of r e vi e w . A n a l i e n m a y appl y f ora s y l um onl y i f

he

“ dem on stra t es by cl ea r a nd conv i nci ng evi dence thatthe appl i ca t i on has bee n fi l edBa ng sawa conce ded that his application was filed morethan threeyear s after his arrival 9 in the United States. However, hehad argued that his claim fe ll under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)( 2)(D) , which provide s an exception to the one-year time limi tation if the alien shows (1)chang ed circumstances that ha

ve materially

aff ecte d the alien’ s elig ibility for a sylum, or (2) “extraordinar

y circumstances relatingto the delay . . . .” Th etim e ly-f

ilingprov isi on s o f 8 U. S.C. § 1 15 8( a)( 2) (B ) a pp ly only to a sylum

c laims , 10 and no t toc laimsfo r withho ldingof remov al. 11 w i th i n 1 y e a ra f

t e rth e d a t e o f

th e a l i e n ’ s a rr i v a l i n th e U n i t e dSt a t e s . ” 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . T h e I J c o n c lu d e d th a t B a n g s a w a ’s ap p lic a tio n w a s n o t tim e ly f i l e d, a nd tha tnone of

the e xc e pt i ons t o the one - y e a rt i m e l i m i t a t i on appl i e d. 9 T hi s C ou rti s w i tho utj uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew such a det erm i nat i on . S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1158( a ) ( 3) ( “ N o c our ts ha l l ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w a ny de t e r m i na t i on of the A tt orney G ener al un der [ se ct i on 11 58 (a )( 2)] . ”) ; M endo zav. U ni t ed S t at es A tt ’ y G e n . , 3 2 7 F. 3 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 8 7 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g th a t8 U . S. C. § 1158( a ) ( 3) di ve s t s thi s C our tof j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w “ a de c i s i on r e ga r di ng w hether a n al i en com pl i ed w i th the on e- ye art i m e l i m i tor es t abl i shed extra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t w o u ld e x c u s e h is u n tim e lyf ilin g ” ) . T here fore , w e m ustdi sm i ss the po rt i on of B angsaw a’ s pet i t i on for r evi ew a ddr e s s i ng hi s c l a i m f

ora s y l um . W e a r e thus l e f tonl y w i th B a ngs a w a ’ s c l a i m f or w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. 10 B . W i t h h ol d i n g of

R e m oval W e a l s o c onc l ude tha ts ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on th at B an g sa w a w as n o t en ti tl ed to w ith h o ld in g o f r em o v al. U n d erth e I N A , “ [a ]n12

a lie n s e e k in g w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l . . . m u s t s h o w th a t h is lif e o rf r e e d o m w o u ld be threa t ened on ac coun tof ra ce , re l i gi on , nat i on al i ty, m em bers hi p i n a part i cul ar s o c ia l g r o u p , o rp o litic a l o p in io n .” M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ; s e e a ls o 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T he a l i e n a l s o “ be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha the
m ore- l i kel y- than-no tw ou l d b e per se cut ed or t ortured up on hi s r eturn t o the coun try in q u e s tio n .” M e n d o z a , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 . T h e I J d e te r m in e d th a t B a n g s a w a h a d n o t c a rr ie d th is e v id e n tia ry b u r d e n . W e m us ta f

f i r m the I J ’ s de c i s i on i f

i ti s “ ‘ s uppor t e d by r e a s onabl e , s ubs t a nt i a l , a nd p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e o n th e r e c o r d c o n s id e r e d a s a w h o le .’” A l N a jja rv . A s h c r o f

t, 2 5 7 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t s the I J ’ s de t e r m i na t i on. F i r s t , the I J m a de pe r m i s s i bl e a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons r e ga r di ng B a ngs a w a ’ s t e s t i m ony abou tm att er s thatform the basi s of hi s c l ai m for w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . S ee D - M uhum e d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (not i ng thatcr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al evi dence t e s ta nd s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he tr i e rof f a c tm us tde t e r m i ne c r e di bi l i ty , a nd [ w e ] m a y not s u b s titu te [ o u r ] ju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e [ I J ] w ith r e s p e c t to c r e d ib ility f in d in g s ” ) . S uch a det erm i nat i on , st andi ng al on e, m ayhave been enou gh t o sup po rtthe deni al of B a ngs a w a ’ s appl i c a t i on. S e e F or gue v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1282, 1287 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ A ] n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i on a l one m a y be13

s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th e d e n ia l o f a n a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n .” ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) ) .
H ow ever , i n add i t i on t o thi s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on , the IJfurther fo u n d th atB an g saw a’ s rep eat ed retu rn s t o In d o n esi a, an d h i s su b seq u en tst ays the r e w i thouti nc i de nt , a l s o unde r m i ne d hi s c l a i m tha ti tw a s m or e l i ke l y tha n not tha the w oul d be pe r s e c ut e d upon hi s r e turn. S e e , e . g. , N ga rur i h v. A s hc r of t , 371 F .3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 - 8 9 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( a lie n ’s r e tu rn a n d r e m a in in g u n h a r m e d in h is nat i ve coun tryaf

t eral l egedl y s uffe ri ng pers ec ut i on di m i ni shes fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n ) . O n ap p e a l, B a n g s a w a g o e s to g r e a t le n g th s to s h o w g e n e r a lly th a t th e r e is vi ol ence i n Ind on es i a a gai nstC hri st i ans. H e r el i es on nu m er ou s new spaper a c c ount s a nd r e por t s f

r om the S t a t e D e pa r tm e nta nd othe ror ga ni z a t i ons r e ga r di ng v io le n c e , r e p o r te d ly p e rp e tr a te d b y M u s lim s ( s o m e w ith lin k s to A l- Q a e d a ) . H o w e v e r , a s n o te d b y th e I J , n o n e o f th is in f o r m a tio n s h o w s th a t it is m o r e lik e ly tha n nottha tB a ngs a w a hi m s e l f w i l l be s i ngl e d- outf

orpe r s e c ut i on ort or tur e upon hi s r e turn t o I ndone s i a . S e e S e pul ve da v. U ni t e d S t a t e s A tt ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1231- 32 & 1232 n. 7 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c onc l udi ng tha tpe t i t i one r ’ s f a i l ur e t o s how thatpet i t i on erw i l l be “ si ng l ed-out ” f or pers ec ut i on i s f

at al t o asy l um cl ai m w here p e titio n e rr e lie d m e r e ly o n r e p o r ts o f g e n e r a liz e d v io le n c e ) .14

A c c o r d in g ly , th e p o r tio n o f B a n g s a w a ’s p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w p e r ta in in g to w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l is d e n ie d .

I I I . CONCL US I ON F ora l l of the above r e a s ons , w e di s m i s s B a ngs a w a ’ s pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of the deni al of hi s a sy l um appl i ca t i on and d eny hi s pet i t i on for r evi ew of the deni al o f h is ap p lic a tio n f

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. PETI TI O N D I SM I SSED I N PA R T, D EN I ED I N PA R T.